(PC) Wilkins v. Gipson et al, No. 2:2019cv01469 - Document 67 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 5/9/22 ADOPTING in full 62 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 54 defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff's 66 Motion to Strike defendants' objections is DENIED. Defendants' 64 objection to the Findings and Recommendations based on standing is OVERRULED without prejudice to renewal in a subsequent motion. (Kastilahn, A)
Download PDF
(PC) Wilkins v. Gipson et al Doc. 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEENAN WILKINS, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:19-cv-1469 JAM CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER CONNIE GIPSON, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 12, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. The parties have filed their 23 objections to the findings and recommendations and plaintiff has filed a separate motion to strike 24 defendants’ objections. ECF Nos. 63-64, 66. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 26 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 27 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 28 analysis. Defendants’ objection challenging plaintiff’s standing to sue based on his lack of an 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 actual injury was not presented in the motion for judgment on the pleadings. While defendants 2 cited case law addressing the standing issue, it was raised in the context of plaintiff’s failure to 3 properly plead an Eighth Amendment violation. See ECF No. 54-1 at 14-15. Therefore, the 4 magistrate judge addressed all of defendants’ arguments raised in their motion for judgment on 5 the pleadings. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 12, 2022, are adopted in full. 8 2. Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 54) is granted in part and 9 denied in part. To the extent that the court’s screening order of December 17, 2020 10 references Monell, this is stricken and this case proceeds on the allegations in the second 11 amended complaint that defendants Diaz and Gipson were deliberately indifferent to 12 plaintiff’s rights to health and safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment. With respect 13 to defendants’ qualified immunity argument, the motion is denied without prejudice to 14 renewal at a later stage of the proceedings. 15 3. Plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ objections (ECF No. 66) is denied. 16 4. Defendants’ objection to the Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 64) based on 17 standing is overruled without prejudice to renewal in a subsequent motion. 18 19 20 21 DATED: May 9, 2022 /s/ John A. Mendez THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2